When “Life Begins” is not Debatable
In today’s Wall Street Journal Cato Institute vice president for legal affairs and director of Constitutional studies Roger Pilon argues that even if Roe is overturned by the rightward leaning Robert’s Court -which I believe it will be- that the issue of abortion will then revert back to the states.
While I agree with Mr. Pilon’s assessment that Roe v Wade, if overturned by the Supreme Court, would revert back to individual state legislative bodies to be decided, I disagree with his conclusion that:
Whether we believe that the right to life begins at conception or at some point over the next 270 days, we all believe, I hope, that it begins at some point along that line. We all agree, there is some point at which abortion amounts to murderâ?Śwe just can’t agree on where that point is.
This is utter nonsense. We should be able to agree on “when life begins” since it is an undisputed empirical biological fact that can be found in any first year medical student’s embryology textbook that life begins at conception when the human sperm fertilizes the egg-called the process of “fecundation.” Any other arbitrary demarcation of “when human life begins” contradicts this scientific fact. There is no debate on “when human life begins.”
Mr. Pillon states:
“a conservative state like Utah might prohibit most abortions, but next store in Nevada we might see a liberal regime” which should not surprise anybody because “reasonable people can have reasonable differences.”
No individual state no matter how “liberal,” “enlightened,” or “reasonable” its citizenry, has the right to deny the constitutionally inalienable right to life to any human being by discriminating based on stage of development. The 14th Amendment is unambiguously clear on this:
“â?Śnor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The primary role of government is to protect human life. Since all human life begins at conception, this fundamental obligation to protect it must also begin at conception. Period. Not only should Roe be overturned because it has resulted in the intentional premeditated murder of over 40 million developing babies in the name of “privacy” and “choice,” but President Bush should introduce a Constitutional “Right to Life Amendment” that no individual state or federal court could violate.
Michelle Malkin has more on the Supreme Court abortion related Scuffle
Keith Milby has a nice piece on how Democrats have started sliming Alito
Charmaine Yoest live blogged today from the steps of the Supreme Court on New Hampshire Abortion Parental Notification Law Ayotte V Planned Parenthood. What a courageous woman. Great photo coverage of the days events.
November 29th, 2005 at 9:31 am
Well said - Robert Bork once wrote something to the effect that Roe rests its constitutional analysis on the existence of three tri-mesters of human gestation. Fetuses have rights, too, Blackmun had decided, but only after the magical 91st day. Bork wondered about the arbitrarity of it all, too - what would blackmun have done if human gestation took place over an even number of months.
I agree that Pilon gives too much ground. Truth is, everyone agrees when life begins - the battle involves when it’s worth saving.
Bill
November 29th, 2005 at 11:15 am
If “everyone” agreed, there would be no Roe in the first place, and no abortions at all–or conversely there would have been no need for Roe in the first place. Obviously, reasonable (and unreasonable) people disagree, which is why the debate continues, probably without end, and why many pro-choice (NOT necessarily “pro-abortion”) people acknowledge the reproductive rights of those who believe differently than you do.
November 29th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
I don’t know anyone who believes nothing happens at conception. Life begins - some life. The pro-choice argument bases itself on calling it something other than “human” life but I’ve never heard anyone claim it’s not “life.” In fact most of the debate seems centered around what is “viable” as a legitimate indication of what’s worth protecting. Are you equating “viable” life with “life” itself? I also wonder whether you’re correct that “if everyone agreed” it’s life… - my understanding is that some pro-choice advocate choice until birth - beyond what scientific “viability”.
BTW - the “debate continues” - what debate? The problem is that Roe killed the debate. The people have no voice in the matter. Whether it’s right or wrong, and when, is an academic debate, and one that’s rarely heard. The only debate is whether this judge or that one would be willing to undo the farce Roe represents.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Roe, in the first place, admitted that her testimony in Roe v. Wade was all a lie. How can this country base a law on a LIE? Why, Doug H., is it that the 14th amendment is not protecting human life which does begin at conception? Why can’t the people of this country have a voice in this matter? Do you think it would be right to bring this issue of abortion to the vote of the people? If we are teaching another country, such as Iraq, how to write up a constitution how are we to advocate its principals when we can’t even preach our own democratic doctrines?
November 29th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
Doug H, you say:
“If â??everyoneâ? agreed, there would be no Roe in the first place, and no abortions at allâ??or conversely there would have been no need for Roe in the first place.”
Of course not “everyone” agreed that abortion should be banned or heavily restricted, however all 50 states had laws on the books prior to Roe which either banned or heavily restricted the practice. The overwhelming majority of Americans opposed abortion until the activist Douglas Court decided Roe based on the infamous “penumbras and emenations” of the Constitution- some recondite “right of privacy” based on the Griswald discision in 1965. As Roger Pilon states in his article that I link to, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg admitted in her 1993 Madison Lecture at NYU Law School that Roe was not solid constitutional law and that a more “measured” opinion might have spared the nation this pain. The premise of your argument is flawed. To say there was a “need” for Roe because not everyone “agreed” doesn’t make any sense. The fact is that the activist Warren Court imposed their own social views on America by usurping the legislative authority of the individual states to decide abortion on their own. I encourage you to check out “Men in Black” by Mark Levin for a full history of Roe and the cases which preceded it. It is highly instructive to see how Justices Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart who voted with the majority in Roe were influenced by their own personal preferences. Potter Stewart, for example saw abortion as a reasonable solution for population control. Blackmun as well acknowledged similar policy issues at stake in the abortion debate including population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones. Unfortunately personal policy preferences have nothing to do with constitutional analysis. Liberals unanimously concur that Roe was justified on policy grounds and not legal grounds. Again, the judicial branch of our government only has the authority to interpret the law not to make it (legislate from the bench). Not only wasn’t there a “need” for Roe, there is never a “need” for any activist decision not founded entirely on the constitution of the United States of America. When people “disagree” it is for the people themselves to decide via the constitutionally proscribed legislative process. Although I do agree that when it comes to abortion, because of the proclivity of activist courts to overthrow and usurp the will of the people as communicated at the ballot box, in this case, as I mentioned, I believe a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment is necessary to protect every living human being regardless of what stage of development. Even the most defenseless human beings are protected under our Constitution.
To your second point:
“Obviously, reasonable (and unreasonable) people disagree, which is why the debate continues, probably without end, and why many pro-choice (NOT necessarily â??pro-abortionâ?) people acknowledge the reproductive rights of those who believe differently than you do.”
First of all, people who claim to be “pro choice” are always “pro abortion.” Let me explain why.
Claiming that one is personally opposed to child abuse but in favor of his neighborâ??s â??rightâ? to abuse his child is the same in that it recognizes and promotes the very legitimacy and social acceptance of child abuse.
Similarly, when an individual claims that he opposes abortion because he believes it to be the deliberate taking of life, he is, in effect, legitimizing and condoning abortion when he or she cedes that â??rightâ? to others. This is an untenable and illogical position which cannot be rationally justified. Individuals who make this claim believe that they have taken a â??middle of the roadâ? more â??moderateâ? position in between the â??pro-lifeâ? and â??pro-choiceâ? positions. However, one cannot have it both ways. Either an individual believes that all human life is sacred and deserves legal protection or he doesnâ??t. People who are â??pro-choiceâ? vote the same way that â??pro-abortionâ? people vote. Both vote against conferring legal protection on the unborn.
The bottom line is that those who call themselves â??pro-choiceâ? oppose legal protection for the unborn and condone the murder of other developing babies. Indeed, one canâ??t be pro-choice and pro-life simultaneously. The statement that â??I believe that abortion is murder and am personally opposed to murder but support a womenâ??s right to choose murderâ? is an irreconcilable, confused, and utterly absurd notion that is totally inane.
Moreover, those who claim that they canâ??t â??impose their religious beliefs on othersâ? as John Kerry did during the 04â?? Presidential campaign rely on a faulty premise. It is a biological fact, not a religious or philosophical fact, that human life begins at conception. Thus, by opposing abortion one is not imposing his or her â??religiousâ? beliefs upon others. He is merely opposing the intentional destruction of human life based upon the scientific-biological fact that life begins at conception. Abortion is only a religious issue in the general sense that Judeo-Christian principles emphasize life, liberty, and justice for the individual. Abortion, however is primarily a civil rights issue in that it is a question of whether or not an entire class of citizens shall be deprived of â??life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinessâ? guaranteed to all American citizens under our Declaration.
To your point about “reproductive freedom.”
Should the 750,000 aborted females every year have this same right to control their own bodies as well?
Abortion takes the lives of approximately 1.5 million developing babies each year. Half are females. Donâ??t these females have the same constitutional â??rightâ? to control their own bodies which pregnant women purportedly have? What is the constitutional basis for discriminating against the most defenseless females in our society by robbing them of their right to life and of their “reproductive freedom”?
Nobody enjoys total control of his or her body. In many states individuals are prohibited from selling their bodies via prostitution. People are also prohibited in most states from taking illegal drugs.
Women already enjoy â??reproductive freedomâ? in the sense that they can control when they engage in sexual activity and reproduce. However, this â??rightâ? does not extend to the right to harm another individual (her baby). All freedoms have certain limitations with regard to how these freedoms impact the freedoms and rights of others.
Gregg J
November 30th, 2005 at 11:42 am
This is an argument that can never really be won. Yes, life begins at inception. That is not in dispute by anyone. But do two cells together mean life after two weeks? A small gathering of cells after two months? Is sentient life the measurement here for when it is murder? That is where the disagreement comes from.
Pro-abortion people stand on the fact that sentient life does not begin at inception. It is clinical and not murder. Pro-life is the opposite. And until you can figure out a way to prove when sentient life begins, this argument will not be won by either side.
I am pro-life (part of the Catholic upbringing I just can’t shake even with my democratic voting record). I do not believe in using abortion as birth control. But I do think that when life begins is debatable (not by me, but by others) and your initial argument here is flawed. Just because you say something is a clear fact, doesn’t make it so.
November 30th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Abortion Always Takes a Human Life
Gregg at Pundit Review knocks it out of the park with his response to these comments by Roger Pilon in WSJ Whether we believe that the right to life begins at conception or at some point over the next 270…
November 30th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Abortion Always Takes a Human Life
Gregg at Pundit Review knocks it out of the park with his response to these comments by Roger Pilon in WSJ
November 30th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Optimist,
Thaks you for your thoughtful response. Again,however, my contention that human life begins at conception (not inception as you say) is an undisputable scientific biological fact that no credible scientist/embryologist could dispute. You yourself concur when you say “Yes, life begins at inception. That is not in dispute by anyone.”
Whether or not the number of cells which comprise the new human fetus (Latin for little baby)our government does not have the constitutional right to arbitrarily decide based on some arbitrary taxonomy when the living human being can be killed. Since you don’t dispute that the new unique human fetus which has his/her own distinct 46 chromosmes they will have for the rest of their lives as well as a totally distinct DNA genetic code from the biological mother and father, taking the life of that fetus is intentional-premeditated murder. Under Roe it is (for the time being) a “constitutional right” euphemistically called “choice” and has resulted in the slaughter of 40 million little developing babies since Roe nullified 50 states bans/ prohibitions on abortion on demand. But whether it is “legal” or not, it is still “legalized murder” pure and simple. We can play word games all day long. I prefer to tell it like it is. When you knowingly dismember a developing baby and discard its body parts in a trash recepticle I call that murder. May not be politically correct but that’s what it is. And it is going to come to and end very soon in my opinion. (That is my sincere hope anyhow). Teh government does not hav the right to discriminate based on stage of development. Like I said, the bill of Rights and specifically the 14th Amendment protects all human life regardless of how helpless or defenseless he or she may be. And it should be our sworn duty/obligation as compassionate men and women of society to ensure that their lives are protected regardless of how “inconveninet” their births may be to the expectant parents’ life plans.
YOu also claim that you don’t favor abortion as a form of “birth control.” If in fact as you claim that abortion is not murder than why would it matter to you if somebody aborted their baby as a form of birth control to prevent an “unwanted pregnancy?”
Finally, you say this is (abortion argument) is one that can “never be won.” I disagree. I beleive the pro-life side will win when Roe is overturned and all human life in this country is protected via a Human Life Amendment to our constitution. As techonolgy (ultrasound etc…) continues to improve the number of Americans who call themsleves pro-life does as well. I write about this trend extensively in my book which will be released in February whichh debunds the most common claims about abortion and other hot button social issues. Ultimately, all great social issues (slavery/civil rights/homosexual marriage/ are reconciled. Abotion will be decided before long too.
Gregg J
December 1st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
First off, thanks for not making too much fun of me for not using the word conception. That will teach me not to blog during a conference call.
Second, in the end, I hope you are right. I am pro-life and believe life starts right away.
My only disagreement with your statement is that to the rest of the US, it is not quite as cut and dry as you and I believe it is. If it was, Roe would have been turned over years ago.
The best way to change the minds of people is to scientifically prove to them that two cells formed together is as important as a fetus at 8 months. We live in a society where scientific proof rules.
Again, I hope this does get fixed.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Steve Levitt Admits Error in ‘Freakonomics’ Abortion Theory
Steve Levitt’s nemesis, Steve Sailer, predicted that a hot-shot young economist would make a name for himself by debunking Levitt’s abortion-reduced-crime theory found in the pages of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Si…
May 8th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Best site I see. Thanks.
May 8th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
May we exchange links with your site?
May 14th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I’m really impressed!
May 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I like your site
May 16th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Your home page its great
May 16th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!
October 6th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
the proper argument is not about when life begins but about the meaning of the word “person.”
the rights in the 14th amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, which you call “unambiguously clear,” belong only to a person, which is defined in law as an entity having legal responsibility.
if it were “unambiguously clear” that an embryo or fetus is a person under the law, we wouldn’t be discussing this.
there is no “constitutionally inalienable right to life.” maybe you’re thinking of the declaration of independence, which indeed may be the best source for a clear definition of “person” if we take “men” to mean “persons.”
the definition i would propose: that which is endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
since an embryo or fetus, tho alive, has no liberty and doesn’t pursue anything, the conclusion is obvious.
but this isn’t really about that, is it? it’s about taking away women’s liberty, making them obey their male lords and masters, and going back to that old-time patriarchal religion.
right?
October 8th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I am reading this and listening to show concerning your book, Conservative Come Backs to Liberal Lies. Middle American sits on the fence. If the choice comes we want to be able to make a choice. We then have to live with the choice we make. I am 53 years old. I remember when the “right” or “conservative” in this country were not to be trusted. I remember when the ACLU held hope for righting the wrongs in this great country of ours. Now they scare me as much as the people I once thought they could protect us from. You are wise in that you work with the young. People with no living memory of what the powers that be were capable of in America. I still believe that we are the best hope for this world. Right or wrong this is my country and I love it. I am afraid that the pendulum has swung too far to the left. My views are to the right as I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus must weep at what we do in his name. As you teach our young I hope you remember that Jesus taught forgiveness. I hope you remember that as a follower of Jesus we are to teach with love. We must love even those who wish not to believe and show by example the love of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will sign off as the old and dissolutioned, yet hopeful. Please teach carefully. NAJ
October 15th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Atthe Eagle Council you said, “how about the tens of thousands of homosexuals who have gone straight?”
I’d like to know how many tens and where you got that info.
And Gregg, the 16 words may be factually correct, but the whole Bush rush to war was a complete fabrication of lies both lies of commission and lies of omission.
And surely you stood up and came forward when the first Bush praised Saddam after he gassed the Kurds? Please send to me a couple of articles you wrote criticizing Bush’s support and praise of Saddam AFTER the world knew Saddam gassed the Kurds.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:41 am
home loan…
home loan…
December 6th, 2006 at 1:10 am
California Home Lender Loan Mortgage Rate California Low…
California Home Lender Loan Mortgage Rate California Low…